• I am wondering your point of view in planning.

    I mean: when I plan may attacks I usually evaluate die points and expected casualties and if dices do not deviate too much from the average it is possible to commit battle groups of units of the right size for the task to accomplish. I am referring above all to trading with minimal forces and front in dynamic evolution.

    Where I have still difficults is in the defensive side of the planning. For example it seems overwhelming for Germany trying to evaluate all the possibile landings may the allies do, with less or more air units, considering the chance of the BB shots, and so on.
    When I am in this situation I usually end in calculating the maximum possible allied attack and use it as value for comparison of my defense. So I make a rough analysis having only two options: reinforce all the territories for defending from the maximum possible attack or pull back leaving a picket of 1-2 inf.

    Do you use same policy? Make evaluation in terms of attacking punch of the opponents?
    Or do you use higher level decisional factor? Overall startegies schetched before and triggered by particular events?

    For example: 4 TRN for UK and 4 TRN for US means landing in that is not convenient to contrast? So when those event happen WE army pull back to Berlin, no matter the specific pucnch the two lands may deliver.

    I know that this criteria and policies may be personal and even secrets… so I do not aspect answer from all.
    But every contribution will be appreciated!


  • Fail to plan ==> plan to fail.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I do something very similar to you, Romulus. Since a D-Day type invasion is a good move for the allies, it is safe to assume that if it is possible for them to do it, they will do it, and commit all their forces.

    So I usually evaluate what will be left in WE (for example) what will be left after an all-out UK attack, taking into account that they may have slightly better than average luck. Then I see how what’s left will withstand a subsequent all-out attack by the US. The goal is to make sure that they either can’t attack, or that if they do attack and possibly win they will lose much more in IPCs than me. But preferrably I want them not to attack, because Germany can’t afford to lose units once Allied shipping is in full swing, and also, counter-attacking into WE moves my units in the wrong direction, away from Russia.

    A pretty key part of my planning is looking at what will be left AFTER any battle that I’m considering, and then seeing how vulnerable it is - what can it be attacked with? Even if a battle looks like a winner for me, I won’t do it if the result is to leave 5 tanks next to a big pile of infantry, armor and fighters.

    I will sometimes leave SE under-defended however. My thinking is that if I can lure the allies into landing there, it pulls 3-4 of their transports out of position. Thus for the next few turns, they lose the use of 24-32 IPCs of naval units as their transports move back to where they can be useful for other purposes, and fewer units are transported across the atlantic in the meantime.


  • Very interesting Frood.
    I see your point.
    You make a wide scenario analysis evaluating units left and inflicted losses.
    I would like to try this kind of evaluation.

    Thanks!


  • @Lucifer:

    Fail to plan ==> plan to fail.

    For this reason I am asking advice!

    😄


  • I’m more happy with trading SE as US than Germany.
    If Germany does not need to trade WE or SE then more forces can be spend towards Russia.
    Usually, allies will take either SE or WE as soon as possible.
    I did it once with US, I lost a turn, was too early in the game and couldn’t ship units next rnd.
    That is bad planning.
    UK wants to have both EE and Norway, Norway to hold and EE to trade, this also threatens Berlin.
    In a 2vs1 game, we (axis) could se that G could take Caucus in 2 rnds, Russia could not stop it and US+UK
    could not strenghten Caucus in time, Jap moved in to secure Caucus, that is good planning. 
    Likewise, if UK can take WE and US move units so G can’t take it back this is the sort of planning that
    helps you win the game.
    I have had several big standoffs in med. with US, G cant afford to build much navy from rnd 4-5, and even if
    Jap manages to move fleet to med. US can outproduce both powers, regarding naval units.
    Once it took me 6-7 rnds and 6 subs, 2 AC, 4-5 ftrs, + all ground units that could reach Libya, but the strat paid off
    in the end.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Agreed. It’s not ALWAYS a good idea to let the US take SEU. What I’m talking about is when, as for you, it’s still too early for the US to move in that far.

    If the US has transports to spare, then it’s not as good an idea.

    I only like it as a tool to pull needed transports out of position, because then I get to kill US front-line units, while US units in ECAN are stranded and prevented from getting to the front line for an additional turn - it’s a double whammy.

  • 2007 AAR League

    And you also sometimes have the opportunity to get some of the US transports with your German aircraft. Venturing into the Med becomes risky business to the US transport system when they have to spread out their capital ships to protect 2 groups of transports. In many cases, I don’t have a problem with sacrificing some of Germany’s airforce to stall the US in getting ground units to Africa or Europe. Especially when it results in the US having to spend money to replace their transports, as well.

    And Romulus,
    When it comes to defensive planning I start with my capital and work my way down the list of terrtories in order of importance(IPC value or strategic value) with strategic value outweighing IPC value. For example, if it is more important to hold Eastern to allow Germany access to trading territories or prevent the Allies from stacking next to Germany then I will abandon Western Europe or Southern Europe. Most of the time I defend my territories with only enough units to give me a slight edge and dare my opponent to gamble on bad odds but in the case of strategically important territories and my capital I defend with overwhelming odds in my favor.

    And the first question I ask is whether or not an average battle result will cause me to lose defending fighters. If I can’t be expected to kill as many fighters or bombers as I lose in the territory I will either add ground units or abandon the territory if I can’t spare any extra ground units to add for defense.


  • It’s a great idea to let Russia take S. Europe, they can’t make full use of it!  😉

  • 2007 AAR League

    @U-505:

    And Romulus,
    When it comes to defensive planning I start with my capital and work my way down the list of terrtories in order of importance(IPC value or strategic value) with strategic value outweighing IPC value. For example, if it is more important to hold Eastern to allow Germany access to trading territories or prevent the Allies from stacking next to Germany then I will abandon Western Europe or Southern Europe. Most of the time I defend my territories with only enough units to give me a slight edge and dare my opponent to gamble on bad odds but in the case of strategically important territories and my capital I defend with overwhelming odds in my favor.

    And the first question I ask is whether or not an average battle result will cause me to lose defending fighters. If I can’t be expected to kill as many fighters or bombers as I lose in the territory I will either add ground units or abandon the territory if I can’t spare any extra ground units to add for defense.

    That sounds a lot like what I was proposing as one of the basic routines for a TripleA AI in another thread, with Romulus actually… It’s a small forum.

    I agree that defending with just a slight edge is a great strategy. If your opponent attacks, it’s a bad attack. If they don’t attack, you have freed up as many units as possible for other uses. Don’t do it with your capital though because then the risk becomes worth it for your opponent. The other thing I don’t like about that is then the whole game comes down to lucky dice in one battle - it becomes less like chess and more like craps.


  • @Frood:

    I agree that defending with just a slight edge is a great strategy. If your opponent attacks, it’s a bad attack. If they don’t attack, you have freed up as many units as possible for other uses.

    I guess that depends on if you’re winning or losing.  I don’t give a player a chanceto get back in a game if I am winning by giving them 40% odds in a battle.

    I could lose big and then also lose my advantage.
    @Frood:

    I agree that defending with just a slight edge is a great strategy. If your opponent attacks, it’s a bad attack. If they don’t attack, you have freed up as many units as possible for other uses.

    You also have to take into account losing those units.  If it would hurt you badly (like most of your tank corps), then I do not prescribe to this train of thought.

  • 2007 AAR League

    For me it’s usually Inf + Ftrs in WE - it’s too far from the front for tanks to be useful there. And my principal approach is to put in enough Inf that the bad guys can’t kill my Inf w/o losing their air power even with some good luck.


  • Ok I have a more clear Strategic view for defensive planning. There are some decision that have to be pre-planned and executed when those situation occur. We may call these long term planning: The players define a general policies for events he forecasts that and pre-define a reaction to that.

    Going further in details we can consider what Frood and U-505 said.
    We may thing to the short term planning as an analysis of owned territory. I like the idea of having an order: Capital, territories in descending order of strategic value.
    Defending Capitals with owhervelming forces is the first point: stack there as much units it is possible.
    For the other territories then the analysis is related to die points.
    If we consider a territory we want to defend, in which there are fighters we do not want to lose, which is a good margin in die points?
    I mean, skew is dangerous for defender more than for attackers, at least it seems to me that way.
    I usually feel myself “safe” when my die points give to me a margin of at lest 3 defensive hits (rounded down).
    Is it too much? Is it too few?

    P.S. Frood you get the points! In TripleA there could be long term planning routines and short term planning routines!


  • Only thing I would add would be a clarification to your post Romulus…

    Capital Defense is not ALWAYS #1 priority.

    If your capital is not under threat, then why defend it?  Germany is often safe early in the war, allowing Germany to shove forces to the front.  The same is true of Russia early.

    You just have to keep a very close watch on actual and potential enemy movements so that in 2 or 3 turns when your Capital IS under threat that you have adequate forces in range to move to defend it.


  • Ok, Switch, I understood your clarification. I made a statement that it is not always true. Sometime it is sufficient to check for danger and be sure to have defending forces nearby.

    Indeed, it is always a planning resoning, and is what I am looking for! Your precisation make the analysis more clear!


  • @ncscswitch:

    Only thing I would add would be a clarification to your post Romulus…

    Capital Defense is not ALWAYS #1 priority.

    If your capital is not under threat, then why defend it?  Germany is often safe early in the war, allowing Germany to shove forces to the front.  The same is true of Russia early.

    You just have to keep a very close watch on actual and potential enemy movements so that in 2 or 3 turns when your Capital IS under threat that you have adequate forces in range to move to defend it.

    This is what I call overview, or visual “intelligence”.
    We have all been newbs sometime, right?
    Now it’s routine for me to check the BC each round when I’m on the axis side. What can hit Berlin?
    Sometimes US trades SE, but if both UK+US stands in WE, then this is a 2 punch calculation.
    And if Germany does not get this right, then the game is lost beacuse of this.
    This issue is crucial if Jap got about 50% for Moscow, and gains each rnd, stacking novo.
    holding cap for 1 more rnd can win the game….

    This is why some TT’s are much more important than others. It’s actually cheaper to do bad TUV trades with G and J, for Russia,
    if this means Russia have at least 1 inf on every TT outside Moscow. Or else Moscow may have to be stacked big time including
    UK/US fighters which could be used elsewhere.


  • @Romulus:

    Ok, Switch, I understood your clarification. I made a statement that it is not always true. Sometime it is sufficient to check for danger and be sure to have defending forces nearby.

    Indeed, it is always a planning resoning, and is what I am looking for! Your precisation make the analysis more clear!

    With a good sense for “overview” it makes it more easy to make good plans.
    This is better in tripleA for me, at least I’m more used the screen than the board.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Sometimes losing your capitol is irrellevant to the need to destroy the armies of your enemy too.

    For instance, if you can hit Germany hard with Russian forces making it impossible to defend when England goes, who cares if Japan takes Moscow?  England’s now ready to pump out 10 tanks a round and, hopefully, you have America set up with S. and W. Europe so they can put out 12 tanks a round. (IC in W. Europe, duh.)  THat’s 22 tanks vs 8 of whatever Japan’s building in Moscow.


  • @Jennifer:

    Sometimes losing your capitol is irrellevant to the need to destroy the armies of your enemy too.

    You should say:

    Sometimes losing Russian capital is irrellevant to the need to destroy the armies of your enemy too!!! :evil:

    It is the only case I am able to think of a capital fall without problem! I any other case it is always top priority to defend the capital.

    😄

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Germany can fall.

    If you take out Russia strong and have most of the German army left (because you pushed forward and you have a lot of your armor and fighters left) you can push back and reclaim Berlin without too much trouble.


  • @Jennifer:

    Germany can fall.

    If you take out Russia strong and have most of the German army left (because you pushed forward and you have a lot of your armor and fighters left) you can push back and reclaim Berlin without too much trouble.

    The Allied landing force in Berlin and the 16 Allied units being produced at Germany/Southern Europe might have something to say about that.

    I have never seen Germany recapture Berlin once it falls.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Really?  What if Germany has 15 fighters and 30 armor left when Berlin falls?

    What if it all falls to England and America has to shuttle troops?  England cannot build 16 units a round in Europe, not if they want any punch at all, and odds are, they have none left after taking Germany.


  • @Jennifer:

    Really?  What if Germany has 15 fighters and 30 armor left when Berlin falls?

    What if it all falls to England and America has to shuttle troops?  England cannot build 16 units a round in Europe, not if they want any punch at all, and odds are, they have none left after taking Germany.

    I cannot rememer ever that I saw or played a game where Germany could take back its capital after losing it to either
    UK or US.  If Both SE and Berlin falls to UK, then UK must also have WE, and most other TT’s which are worth
    any ipc value, if not then this is bad planning. Best option is US have Berlin and UK SE+WE.
    But also US have SE and UK WE+Berlin works fine usually.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    @Jennifer:

    Germany can fall.

    If you take out Russia strong and have most of the German army left (because you pushed forward and you have a lot of your armor and fighters left) you can push back and reclaim Berlin without too much trouble.

    The Allied landing force in Berlin and the 16 Allied units being produced at Germany/Southern Europe might have something to say about that.

    I have never seen Germany recapture Berlin once it falls.

    Strongly agree.
    You will never seen it also in the future!
    Berlin fall when Germany exhausted all resources, when the last German defense is overcame, not before when Wehrmacht is still strong.


  • @Jennifer:

    Really?  What if Germany has 15 fighters and 30 armor left when Berlin falls?

    What if it all falls to England and America has to shuttle troops?  England cannot build 16 units a round in Europe, not if they want any punch at all, and odds are, they have none left after taking Germany.

    This example is a pure hypothetical scenario.
    No German player may lose Germany having still 15 fighter and 30 armor.
    He should have at least a comparable force to defende Berlin, in which case allied have a juggernaut force to accomplish Berlin conquest.
    Or he should have leaved Berlin almost empty to be taken by the allied, in which case he deserve to be expelled by the game (having lost the capitol those nation may be out of play).

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 12
  • 2
  • 11
  • 2
  • 2
  • 10
  • 28
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

35
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts